4
Friday, October 9,1992
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Baseball is secondary to issues in Sunday debates
When Bill Clinton suggested last week that the presidential debates be scheduled around the World Series, some people thought it was a
good idea.
True, the World Series comes around only once a year True, it is the event that millions of fans wait for all season.
But the presidential election happens only once every four years, and its outcome has considerably more impact on the lives of U.S. citizens than does the World Series.
The American public has repeatedly said that it wanted to hear the candidates actually address issues, not just make vague comments about them. The presidential debates are the best chance that voters have to hear this.
The debates give voters a chance to hear each candidate's stance on the issues. They allow voters to watch the candidates interact. And they let voters watch the candidates think on their feet.
And while the candidates are not likely to announce dramatic changes in their views during the debates, voters might gain better insight into what positions the candidates hold and why they hold them.
U. S. citizens should be willing to give up 90 minutes of baseball air time to watch the debates. Or the networks and major-league baseball should schedule around the debates.
The outcome of the World Series will fade into baseball trivia. But the outcome of the election will affect us for years to come.
JULIE WASSON FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Kansas State fans say luck is not a factor
In reference to the letter from the KU chapter of the Dana Altman Fan Club that appeared in the Oct. 6 issue of the Kansas State College, your fellow club members from the K-State chapter wish to thank you for your support of coach Altman and the good work he has done here despite his lack of resources to work with.
We are sure that you were disappointed as we were when the Jayhawks hit a lucky shot at the CLE State in Manhattan last season.
While on the topic of luck, your fellow fan club members here in Manhattan are a little concerned with your memory loss pertaining to the Oct. 12, 1991, K-State/KU football game. Your letter in the Collegian indicated that the Wildcats were lucky to win that game, 16-12, and that the Jayhawks gave the game to K-State. We feel that you may be spending too much time in that sanitary landfill you call Lawrence and need to have your memories refreshed.
Here is a list of what K-State luck included on that day (taken from the Oct. 13, 1991, issue of the *Manhattan Mercury.*)
1. Compiling 27 lucky first downs compared to KU's 17.
2. Gaining more lucky total yards than KU.
3. Having possession of the football a lucky four minutes and fifteen seconds more than KU.
4. Luckily holding "Tuxedo Tony" to 111 yards below his season average Yes 111
5. Holding KU, luckily, to no points when they had a first down on KSU's 15 yard line, again on KSU's 16, again on KSU's 31, and again on a fourth and two from KSU's 39.
6. Holding KU, huckily, to a field goal after a first down on the KSU 14.
7. Two luckily, unimpressive drives of 96 and 66 yards in the fourth quarter to be given the game.
While this incredible string of luck was being bestowed upon the Wildcats, KU was working hard to recover four fumbles, three of which were mishandled K-State snaps, and intercept a pass from a sophomore quarterback who had very little playing experience. But perhaps the greatest KU achievement was a 47 yard field goal that was set up when, after KU had lined up on扑 on fourth down, K-State was penalized for calling time-out when they had none remaining; an exceptional Jayhawk offensive feat.
Good luck to the Jayhawks on Saturday. If they have any hack at all, maybe they can stay within the touchdowns this year as well.
As for KU giving the game to K-State, we don't know about coach Mason, but we do know coach Snyder, who admitted to giving away any game.
Dana Altman Fan Club Kansas State University Chapter
Debates should entertain voters as well as inform
Babe Ruth once was asked how he could justify making more money than the President of the United States. "I had a better year than he did," the Bambino replied.
STAFF COLUMNIST
In the years since, baseball players have continued to have better years than presidents, to the point where the current president has to rearrange his debate schedule to accommodate the World Series. With good reason, I might add; the debates in their current format are snooze-fests that couldn't compete with the Little League World Series, let alone the Fall Classic. Something needs to be done, and fast, or the only network willing to carry Bill and George's Excellent Debates will be the Prime network sports channel. The thought of debates that could determine the future of Western Civilization sandwiched between Kick boxing and monster truck racing should be enough to send chills down the spine of even the most apathetic citizen.
There is hope, however. If the candidates will follow any of the following suggestions, the debates will soon be getting better ratings than a Jackie Collins miniseries.
I want to preface all of these suggestions by saying that the first thing we must do is get rid of Ross Perot. Perot is just a distraction, taking away from the conflict between Bush and Clinton. Think back on all the great conflicts in history. There was David vs. Goliath. The Roadrunner vs. the Coyote, Godzilla vs. Charles Barkley. Do you see a third party in here anywhere? What we need here is Bill and George ducking it out man to man.
MARK COATNEY
One option is to appeal directly to the baseball fan by giving them an even better spectacle: Let the candidates box. I want George and Bill in the ring and America with the scorecards. Put it on Pay Per View (the profits can help pay off the national debt, which should keep Ross happy) and have Don King promote it. "The Fight to See Who's Right! The War for Four More! The Melee for the Presidency!" All of you fight fans out there should be about to wet your pants at the prospect of this match-up; it certainly should be a better fight than any of Tommy Morrison's efforts.
"One squeeze of his stick shift and I was on the highway to heaven" would elevate American political discourse to a new level.
Another way to increase viewer interest is to send George and Bill out on blind dates with the same three women and then have them talk about their dates on TV. This is known as the "Studs" option. Have a hunch that I'm not the only one in America who would like to know if George or Bill is more likely to fold his underwear before having sex. Comments like
We could take the intellectual route and have the two candidates play the game of "Life". Will George go to college or directly into business? Will Bill chose the pink car or the blue? Given the current political climate, perhaps a better board game for the candidates to play would be "Scruples."
or we could continue with a standard debate format and just get better moderators asking the questions. Prince, for instance, would be a wonderful moderator. Hearing Clinton respond to a question like "If I were your girlfriend, would you let me dress you?" would be great.
Let's face it. Most people don't watch the debates to find out how the candidates stand on the issues. They watch the debates to find out if they like this person who says he wants to be president.
The U.S. voter in every election is in essence deciding whether or not to give this guy money to bring beer back to the party. What they want to know is "Hey, is this guy gonna stiff us or what?" "The easier we can make this question to answer the better, even if that means Bush and Clinton on TV playing strip poker. Who knows? Maybe the debates will become our new National Pastime.
Mark Coatney is a Linwood graduate student majoring in political science.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Foreign press is critical of Perot
The only thing that Ross Perot can achieve by re-entering the campaign with less than five weeks before the vote is to add an unpredictable element to a contest that was nicely going Bill Clinton's way.
the presidency. The Texas billionaire now rationalizes his change of heart by asserting that neither candidate has addressed the issues.
To some extent he is correct. President Bush has not been able to spell out what he would do differently than he has done these past four years to overcome America's massive budget deficits. Clinton, for his part, has not been able to share Perot's passion for drastically reducing the deficit. Clinton has argued, quite rightly, that deficit
Perot had opted out of the race, arguing that he had realized that he had no realistic chance of winning
reduction should not be attempted at the risk of unemployment.
Perto hopes that his presence in the contest would force the two major candidates to address the economic issues in a manner dictated by him. But it is unlikely that at this stage the two mainstream parties are going to trim their sails to improve their chances of winning his earlier odyssey. Perton's second venture is essentially an ego trip of a very rich man.
The Times of India. New Delhi
KATE KELLEY Hunting season triggers bad memories
STAFF COLUMNIST
Fall has arrived. Leaves are turning gorgeous colors and falling from the trees. The feet of cross country runners crunch over the leaves as they run on the outskirts of town. Farther out in the country, leaves drift into piles that camouflage both the hunter and the hunted as the season opens on wild game.
Yawn.
I have no quolms with people who hunt. I live in the midst of a family of hunters. I was raised raisin peasant, wild geese, antelope and even buffalo. I understand the population control theory and agree with it. There is nothing wrong with hunting. I just happen to find it extremely boring
I was supposed to like hunting. I was born on the opening day of peasant hunting season in the self-proclaimed pheasant capital of the world, Redfield, South Dakota. Both my father and the doctor had to postpone their first shots for several hours on that Saturday morning, waiting for my appearance. And then I had the audacity to be a girl—a member of the gathering gender, not the hunters.
But my father was an enlightened man, and he took me road hunting with the rest of the family. No longer legal, road hunting consisted of driving for hours down dry, dusty country roads until a pheasant flew up from the field. Then my father sprang from the car and shot at it. I do not remember ever enjoying this. I do remember getting car sick and sleeping a lot.
I found out why not on my first hunting trip. We drove for eight hours and spent the night in the back of a small Toyota wagon in the middle of a field. When you are young and single, this summer you should sleep no longer necessitate sleeping in the back seats of cars, this arrangement is just plain uncomfortable.
When I married a hunting fanatic, I decided to try it myself. In that newly-wed glow of fantasy, I thought this might be a pastime we could share. I knew couples that did. They would wear their matching orange L.L. Bean vests and hats and spend vacations trumpeting through fields and steamings after exciting game. Why not me?
In the morning, we had to get up at sunrise. Then we sat and waited in the bitter cold. And we could not talk. We might frighten away the antelope. I had not been sure if I could really shoot an antelope even if I saw one. But after hours of just sitting, silently freezing in the middle of a field, I could have shot a cure, cuddy kitten if it meant I could go home.
I did not shoot anything, but my husband got his antelope. Instead of dull, things got extremely messy. Once you actually抱 an antelope, you have to gut it on the spot, or the meat will be tainted. We sliced open the animal, reached in with our hands and pulled out all the gross and disgusting parts you do not like to think your food ever had. Host my ambition to hunt and my appetite all at the same time.
That was my last wild-game hunting trip. My husband and sons go out every fall, and I send them off happily with a smile and a wave. Then my daughter and I hop in the car and drive to the mails.
KANSANSTAFF
There, we get into some serious hunting of our own.
Kate Kelley is a Fort Leavenworth junior majoring in English.
GREG FARMER Managing editor
ERIC NELSON
Editor
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Asst. Managing...Almee Bralnard
News...Alexander Bloemhof
Editorial...Stephen Martino
Campus...Gaye Osterberg
Sports...Shelly Solon
Photo...Justin Krupp
Features...Cody Holt
Graphics...Sean Tevis
SCOTT HANNA Business manage
Business Staff
Campus sales manager ... Angela Glewenger
Regional sales mgrs ... Melissa T尔拉尼
National sales mgrs ... Brian Willes
Co-op sales mgrs ... Amy Stumbro
Production mgrs ... Brad Bron
Kim Claxton
Marketing director ... Ashley Langford
Creative director ... Michael Lassig
Classified mgrs ... Judith Standley
Business Staff
Loco Locals
BILL LEIBENGOOD
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
**Letters** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homework, or faculty or staff position. Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Staffer-Fall Hall.
By Tom Michaud
WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE ACTUALLY ATTLE
THE GAME?